Originally posted by xyz revolution
you ****ing moron. Let me introduce you to this thread: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t397171.html so you're the @sshole.@sshole. 😐
Oh that's not perfect proof though...can be different....works quite well..but still...
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
I read the thread before I even posted, and no, I didn't get what the hell you were trying to say, because it makes no sense at all. It's completely contradictory. The ONLY reason to believe science is through repeatable logic and reasoning."NO! Screw your logic! I'm just going to make shit up and believe it in faith!"
See Wesker's posts for more reasons why your statement is utter crap, he's doing a pretty good job of nullifying your entire argument.
How the hell do you get that logic is created by intuition? Logic is created through experience and understanding. How you equate that with intuition, I have no clue.
How old are you? have you taken any college science courses?
I recommend psychology.
What do you know about logic and science ? Take a time to study something about it then you come back to talk to me. you are attacking something you have no idea.
Originally posted by xyz revolution
✅ also, if evolution doesn't exist? Why do we share genes with apes? Or rather, every single animal on this planet!? Even rats and insects? Well?
Maybe those same genes have the same basic functions in every animal.
We share stomachs with every animal, but not the same number or the amount of hydrochloric acid that is produced.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Sincerely, I think that many people talk about logic and reason without understanding it. I don´t agree with creationism but to argue agaisnt religion, we must understand all the consequences of what we are saying to not commit the same mistake of religion... and act just by faith in reason which is just one more philosophical point of view that needs to be assumed to be true, and is not absolute.
First, I'd like to requote your original statement before I get into the idea of Gödel's intuition legacy here. You are effectively comparing faith in religion to faith in reason. You are classifying both as mere philosophical points of view, and you claim that each is not absolute. Now, touching on that latter point, yes- neither reason nor religion in and of themselves is absolute. The idea of absolute truths is really rather ridiculous, since it would require one to have all knowledge in order to truly know that truth. Like the Socrates would like to think- you could not know a horse until you knew ALL of it in its entirety. He was clever and wise in knowing that human beings don't have absolute knowledge on anything, but he still advocated reason and philosophy as means of finding that truth. He believed, as I do, that the truth will set one free. The allegory of the cave comes to mind.
Now, to put religion and reason as mere philosophical viewpoints and thus make them virtual equals because of a semantic difference in the world "belief" is being ridiculous. Belief in religion falls under the idea of "faith". In case you've forgotten the term, it's this:
faith
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
Those in bold are pretty much the idea of "religious faith". However, to better illustrate the difference, I've dug this out of Reference.com:
The word faith has various uses; its central meaning is similar to "belief", "trust" or "confidence", but unlike these terms, "faith" tends to imply a transpersonal rather than interpersonal relationship - with God or a higher power. The object of faith can be a person (or even an inanimate object or state of affairs) or a proposition (or body of propositions, such as a religious credo). In each case, however, the faithful subject's faith is in an aspect of the object that cannot be rationally proven or objectively known.
In religious contexts, "faith" has several different meanings. Sometimes, it means loyalty to one's religion. It is in the latter sense in which one can speak of, for example, "the Catholic faith" or "the Islamic faith." For creedal religions, faith also means that one accepts the religious tenets of the religion as true. For non-creedal religions, faith often means that one is loyal to a particular religious community. In general, faith means being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see with your physical (as opposed to spiritual) eyes.
Now, belief in religion is belief in aspects of religion: codes, creeds, passed down traditions, legends, and forms of mysticism which are never proven only accepted. But religion, as opposed to reason, cannot be used as a tool for determining what things are, and how they work. Religious faith cannot show you the inner workings of your computer, or how to define horse power, or how to create a pulley. Religious faith cannot provide you with knowledge of things; it gives you only something to believe without substantial proof. Also, religion is subjective: when you ask someone what do they believe, you're essentially asking them what is their opinion on things. Reason itself does not suppose how things are, nor does it conform to personal bias. It's only a tool to find knowledge and discover knowledge.
Knowledge is defined as this:
knowl•edge
n.
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
Notice the emphasis on perception and learning. You cannot learn things via faith. You cannot perceive things via beliefs. You cannot produce knowledge of how things are without observing how things are. Now, axioms aside, if you intend to know things about the world, you must use reason to determine it. You cannot say "The sky is blue because I have faith that it is so" or "The clouds are white today because God makes them white". This is not knowledge. It does not require intricate know-how of the nature of clouds and the sky to make those answers, and the claims are silly.
However, even when you try and make these claims, you are trying to masquerade them as reason. So while religious beliefs and faith might not be correct, the only way they could be correct would be to adhere to reason. Through reason we achieve knowledge of the world, which I believe, I pointed out initially in the other thread. If you want to get into nitty-gritty axioms and intuitionism, make a thread and I'll go at it with you. That's an entirely different point. I'd like to point out that intuition doesn't lead people to believe in self-evident a priori things, but the idea of realizing self-contradiction. Only those who are incapable of reason or are insane would assume an idea that clearly contradicts itself. The human brain is wired to realize certain things as feasible, but this does not mean they are intuitively discovered. If anything, reason provides us with a tool to avoid self-contradiction, and it's only natural that the foundation for moving to use reason would be a natural avoidance of relying on self-contradiction. Those who choose not to take such a step would be incapable in the first place.
And lastly, keep in mind that the sources of intuition are feeling, experiences and knowledge. How can one have grasped knowledge prior to using the most basic form of intuition in order to... use intuition? That makes absolutely no sense.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree that the process of logic is very different from the way intuition works. I not saying that intuition is used in logic in the way you show in the robot example. It is not needed at all, algorithyms work without the use of intuition, but I arguing that intuition is need in the very foundation of logic. Logic in its principle needs to start from some propositions that are "assumed" to be true, and not proved. If you assume that something is true without proving it is intuition that you are using.Take a look at my previous post I explained it all in there.
Was there intuition as the basis for primitive logic? Perhaps.
Say I propose a syllogism:
a) All baseball players wear caps.
b) Bob is a baseball player.
c) Bob wears a cap.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that statement, and indeed it may well be obvious. However, in order to make that statement, I have to go under the premise of me actually knowing that all baseball players wear caps, and that me truly understanding that Bob is a baseball player. Can I know these things absolutely without some level of intuition initially? Doubtful, and as Wesker pointed out, absolute truths are very difficult, if not impossible, to attain.
However, the difference between belief in logic and belief in religion is very simple. Logic is accomplished through observation and deduction. Do I have to "believe" that my observation is true? Probably, but as shown with the robot example, it does not depend on any level of faith.
Religion depends solely on faith, without faith, you can not have religion. The absence of faith from logic (observation and deduction) by way of the robot example requires absolutely no faith. Therein lies the difference, faith is a mechanism of religion, faith is a corrollary for logic.
Lets not talk about faith then. Lets talk about intuition instead.
Like you said, faith does not grant us perceptions, and knowledge is about perceptions, faith is just about trusting in an idea. I agree with you in that, so lets eliminate faith.
You are understanding intuition as the ability to realize self contradiction, but intuition is about any kind of perception. "Self contradictory" is a concept of logic, if intuition was the realization of it, intuition would be biased towards logic. You are saying that intuition leads people to realize logic. Here is some definitions from Wikipedia, and Reference.com :
1- quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences and empirical knowledge
2- Immediate apprehension or cognition, that is, knowledge or conviction without consideration, thought, or inference.
3- knowledge or conviction gained by intuition
the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.
4- the perceiving of unconsciousness
Intuition is taken as process of obtaining knowledge without use of rational thought, inference, or empirical evidence. It is immediate apprehension of an idea, but it doesn´t say that the idea need to be right. An insane person probably has her own insane perceptions, and they are her intuitions. It not ceases to be intuition just because it can be self contradictory if you use logic to judge the idea.
To your last question there is not much problem, intuition can use knowledge, but you don´t need knowledge to use intuition. You don´t need to have grasped knowledge before.
Originally posted by Illustrious
Was there intuition as the basis for primitive logic? Perhaps.Say I propose a syllogism:
a) All baseball players wear caps.
b) Bob is a baseball player.
c) Bob wears a cap.There is nothing fundamentally wrong with that statement, and indeed it may well be obvious. However, in order to make that statement, I have to go under the premise of me actually knowing that all baseball players wear caps, and that me truly understanding that Bob is a baseball player. Can I know these things absolutely without some level of intuition initially? Doubtful, and as Wesker pointed out, absolute truths are very difficult, if not impossible, to attain.
However, the difference between belief in logic and belief in religion is very simple. Logic is accomplished through observation and deduction. Do I have to "believe" that my observation is true? Probably, but as shown with the robot example, it does not depend on any level of faith.
Religion depends solely on faith, without faith, you can not have religion. The absence of faith from logic (observation and deduction) by way of the robot example requires absolutely no faith. Therein lies the difference, faith is a mechanism of religion, faith is a corrollary for logic.
I agree.
I think the better way to put it is that faith is about loyalty to an idea, when intuition is about the perception or aprehension of an idea. Knowledge does only refer to perceptions, so just intuition can bring knowledge, not faith.
Every logic system has basic premises, and since these premises are assumed a priori, they can only be know through intuition since there is no way they can be proved.
apparently all creationist claims of there beeing evidence for creationism exists in the fact that one can easily just say WHY as an answer to every explanation no matter how complete or trivial. you the oter person will continue giving better and better explanations to try and make u understand but the adamant creationist will continue saying WHY. and sooner or later the evolutionist would give up and leave. and THAT is why creation is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. {this can be seen as creationist will keep saying WHY until they question the very logic that created all questions asking why anything LOGICAL should be accepted any way}
Originally posted by Atlantis001
What do you know about logic and science ? Take a time to study something about it then you come back to talk to me. you are attacking something you have no idea.
Lame excuse. Prove me wrong first and then I'll stop thinking you're just a blind Christian.
Originally posted by Atlantis001Intuition is taken as process of obtaining knowledge without use of rational thought, inference, or empirical evidence. It is immediate apprehension of an idea, but it doesn´t say that the idea need to be right. An insane person probably has her own insane perceptions, and they are her intuitions. It not ceases to be intuition just because it can be self contradictory if you use logic to judge the idea.
Correct philosphy with the wrong outcome.
If logic disproves her 'intuition', she doesn't have anything productive to offer anyone else and her intuition is therefore worth less than a big steamy pile.
You're playing with semantics in an area that doesn't allow it. Science is provable and repeatable fact, using logic and reason to prove a hypothesis, or a GUESS. There is no intuition here, noone knows that they are right, they make a guess and prove it again and again to see if they are right.
Originally posted by Council#13??? Although The Big Bang is odd, it was thought up because The Milky Way is moving away from The Andromeda Galaxy. So in theory, at one point they were together. And this went for everything so, in the beginning everything was together and very small because we're all getting bigger!
the big bang
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Lets not talk about faith then. Lets talk about intuition instead.Like you said, faith does not grant us perceptions, and knowledge is about perceptions, faith is just about trusting in an idea. I agree with you in that, so lets eliminate faith.
You are understanding intuition as the ability to realize self contradiction, but intuition is about any kind of perception. "Self contradictory" is a concept of logic, if intuition was the realization of it, intuition would be biased towards logic. You are saying that intuition leads people to realize logic. Here is some definitions from Wikipedia, and Reference.com :
1- quick and ready insight seemingly independent of previous experiences and empirical knowledge
2- Immediate apprehension or cognition, that is, knowledge or conviction without consideration, thought, or inference.
3- knowledge or conviction gained by intuition
the power or faculty of attaining to direct knowledge or cognition without evident rational thought and inference.
4- the perceiving of unconsciousnessIntuition is taken as process of obtaining knowledge without use of rational thought, inference, or empirical evidence. It is immediate apprehension of an idea, but it doesn´t say that the idea need to be right. An insane person probably has her own insane perceptions, and they are her intuitions. It not ceases to be intuition just because it can be self contradictory if you use logic to judge the idea.
To your last question there is not much problem, intuition can use knowledge, but you don´t need knowledge to use intuition. You don´t need to have grasped knowledge before.
Well, I have about ten minutes to tackle this problem before the Real World calls, so let's have a go at it...
Intuition, in philosophy, way of knowing directly; immediate apprehension. The key word is knowing. What is it to know something? Well, knowledge requires:
1. The state or fact of knowing.
2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.
3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.
4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.
5. Specific information about something.
6. Carnal knowledge.
Now, I ask you this: how does one reach knowledge through intuition? Intuition itself is, by definition, based on things such as experience, knowledge, and emotions. However, while intuition is thought to draw subconsciously on these things, the definition describes it as knowledge acquired without reason. I ask you: how can one know a rational concept, without having first used it? Could I know the history of Babylon without having researched it? Could I know the Latin word for "pig" without having heard it? Babies use basic forms of reason all the time, but they may not realize that's what they are. Unless you want to argue that babies have intuition and can recognize the logic behind whining and getting a bottle, or realizing to whine in the first place because of hunger pangs, which in turn brings mum with a bottle that in turn alleviates hunger. I'd argue that it's learned behavior psychologically, and that by that behavior being repeatable the child learns the concepts of cause and effect, and later learns the dangers of self-contradiction. The idea of random intuition is ridiculous from where I'm standing. It sounds more like it's being a shoe-in for common sense.
Anyways, more on this later. I'm late...